Jewish audio on Chabad.org. This shiur will be in Masechet Shevuos דף מ\"ה, and we will start at דף מ\"ד עמוד ב' from the beginning of the perek. כל הנשבעין שבתורה, all those that are mechuyav to swear from the Torah, and as we learned earlier that there are three types of people who have to swear from the de'oraita, that is a שבועת השומרים. If a person watches something for somebody else, and later he claims that it got stolen or lost, if he is a שומר חנם, if he watches it without pay, then he just has to swear and he is patur from paying. If he's a שומר שכר and he claims that an אונס happened to it, then he has to swear and he is patur from paying. Or the case of an עד אחד, if a person claims he doesn't owe, and a witness comes, one witness comes and says that he does owe, then he has to swear to contradict the witness. Or a שבועה של מודה במקצת. If a person denies part of the claim and admits a part, so then de'oraita he has to swear. So all those that have to swear מדאורייתא, נשבעין ולא משלמין. So the din is they have to swear and not pay, which means the one that is defending himself that he doesn't owe, he is the one that swears, and if he swears, he doesn't pay. It's not that the תובע, the one that's claiming the money, he should be the one to swear, and after he swears, he gets his money, but it is the נשבע, the one that's being claimed against, he's the one that is supposed to swear, and if he swears, he doesn't pay. ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין, but these other people, chachamim did make a takanah, that when they claim, they should swear that their claim is true and they take, not their opponent swears. And who are they? השכיר, a hired worker. For instance, if the worker claims that you didn't pay me my wages, so he has to swear and get his money. והנגזל, or somebody who has been robbed, and he claims that that person robbed him, so he swears and takes. והנחבל, the one who has been wounded, and he claims that that person wounded him, he swears and gets his money. ושכנגדו חשוד על השבועה, or the one that his opponent is suspected of taking a false oath. So then also we say that he cannot swear, so the one that's against him swears and gets his money. וכן חנווני על פנקסו, or the store keeper with his booklet, which means that if he wrote down in his booklet that he gave certain person money or food on the account of another person, and then the other person claims that he paid him, so the din is that the חנווני is the one that swears and gets his money. And the Gemara is going to explain all the cases. שכיר כיצד, what would be the case of the hired worker that we said, that he swears and gets his money? אמר לו, the worker says to the owner that hired them, \"תן לי שכרי, give me my wages, שיש לי בידך, that you owe me.\" הוא אומר, he says to him, \"כבר שילמתי, I paid you.\" והלה אומר, but he says to him, \"לא נטלתי, I didn't take. You never gave it to me.\" הרי זה נשבע ונוטל. So he swears and he gets his money. So we don't say that the other person, המעביד who hired him has to swear that he gave him and wouldn't have to pay, but we say he is נשבע ונוטל. The hired worker, he swears, and he gets his money. And the Gemara will explain why the chachamim made this takanah that he should swear and get his money, rather than the מעביד should swear and not have to pay. Rabbi Yehuda Omer, but רבי יהודה says, עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה. When is this din that he swears? Only if there is a partial admission, which means Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Chachamim when they made a takanah that in the case of a שכיר you have to swear, it doesn't mean that they made a takanah of a shevuah, that there is a shevuah, the din is you have to swear, but who should swear? The שכיר should swear. All the Chachamim did was that if there is an obligation of a shevuah anyways, so then the Chachamim just switched it around and said, instead of the נתבע swearing, instead of the one that's being claimed against should swear to defend him, but the one that's claiming he should swear. But the חיוב שבועה in itself has to be a חיוב שבועה מדאורייתא. And therefore he says that this din is only if there was a מודה במקצת. If the owner who hired the worker claims, \"I paid you part of it,\" and the worker says, \"You didn't pay me anything at all,\" so then the בעל הבית is a מודה במקצת, so he is מחויב to swear מדאורייתא. But מדאורייתא the בעל הבית would have to swear and be פטור from paying. Chachamim switched it around and said let the שכיר swear in this case and get his money. So Rabbi Yehuda holds of this case, and the same would be in the other cases later on, that the Chachamim did not establish a shevuah here. We're only talking in a case where the shevuah is supposed to be anyways. All the Chachamim did was they switched the shevuah from the נתבע to the תובע. And that's why in this case too, only if the shevuah is there anyway because he's a מודה במקצת. That's when the Chachamim said that that shevuah that's supposed to be anyway should not be done by the בעל הבית, but by the שכיר, and he should swear and get his money. כיצד? For example, what would be the case where you would say that the שכיר has to swear according to Rabbi Yehuda? For instance, אמר לו, if the hired worker says to him, תן לי שכרי חמישים דינר שיש לי בידך, \"Give me my wages, which is 50 dinar that you owe me.\" והוא אומר, and he says to him, התקבלת דינר זהב, \"You received one dinar, and I only owe you 49 dinarim.\" So then he is a modeh b'miktzat, and really he should have to swear. But Rabbi Yehuda says the chachamim said that instead of the baal habayit swearing, so the sachir swears and gets his money. The second case mentioned before of the din when the claimer swears instead of the one that's being claimed against was a nigzal, if he claimed that he is owed money because he was robbed. כיצד? What is the case? היו מעידין אותו שנכנס לביתו למשכנו שלא ברשות, if there were witnesses that they saw this person entering his house to take a mashkon without permission. והוא אומר כלים נטלת, so the one that was the owner of the house says, \"He took my vessels. He robbed me.\" והוא אומר, and he says, לא נטלתי, \"I didn't take. I didn't take anything.\" הרי זה נשבע ונוטל, so the one that claims that he was robbed, he swears and he is supposed to pay him for his claims. We don't say that let the accused robber swear that he didn't take anything and he should be patur, but rather we say that the one that's claiming that he was robbed, he swears that he did take it, and then he has to get paid. Rabbi Yehuda אומר, Rabbi Yehuda says here too, עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה. When would this din be? Only if there was a partial admission. כיצד? For instance, אמר לו, if he says to him, שני כלים נטלת, \"You went into my house without permission and you took two vessels.\" והוא אומר, and he says, לא נטלתי אלא אחד, \"I only took one.\" So then he is a modeh b'miktzat. מדאורייתא there is an obligation of a shevuah. But מדאורייתא, who's supposed to swear? The one that's accused, and he becomes patur. So the rabbanan said, rather than that, the nigzal swears, the one that's claiming, and if he swears, he gets paid. The next case mentioned in the Mishnah, where the one that claims has to swear, is the nechbal, if someone claims that he was wounded. The din is that he swears and gets his money. כיצד? For instance, היו מעידין אותו שנכנס לביתו שלם, people testified that they saw him enter to that other person and he entered complete, without any wound. ויצא חבול, and they saw him go out wounded. אמר לו, and he says to him, חבלת בי, \"You wounded me.\" והוא אומר, and he says, לא חבלתי, \"I didn't wound you. I didn't do anything.\" הרי זה נשבע ונוטל, so then the one that's claiming that he wounded him has to swear and he gets his money. Since the witnesses saw him entering complete and going out wounded, so we are pretty sure that he was wounded by that person, and therefore we say that all he has to do is swear and get his money. But we don't say let the other person swear and be free from paying, but in a case like this we rather say that he swears that he was wounded by him, and he gets paid for his wound. Rabbi Yehuda אומר, Rabbi Yehuda says, עד שתהא שם מקצת הודאה, that when is this דין, only if there was a partial admission. כיצד? For instance, אמר לו חבלת בי שתים, the same thing happened: people saw him go in complete and come out wounded, and he says, \"You wounded me twice.\" והלה אומר, and he answers him, לא חבלתי בך אלא אחת, \"I only wounded you once.\" So he is a מודה במקצת, because for one wound he admits, and for that he admits he has to pay. He only denies the other wound. So he's a מודה במקצת, so he has to swear. The חכמים said that instead of him swearing, the one that was wounded swears, and he gets his money.

The next case mentioned previously in the Mishnah was שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה, if his opponent is suspected of swearing false. Lemashal, if someone claims something from somebody, and the other person is obligated to swear, but he's a person that is not trusted with a shevuah, so then we reverse the shevuah, and the one that's claiming swears, and after he swears, he gets his money. כיצד? For instance, אחת שבועת העדות ואחת שבועת הפקדון ואפילו שבועת שווא, if one person was suspected of swearing false, a שבועת העדות, which means that at one point he swore that he doesn't know any testimony for somebody, and really he was lying because he did know testimony for somebody. So mimela this person is already known that he could swear false. So in this case also, if he is supposed to swear that he doesn't owe a certain money, amount of money, to the other person, we can't make him swear because we know from a previous case that he swore false. In a case like this he cannot swear, so his opponent, the one that's claiming, swears and gets his money. Or if it was a שבועת הפקדון, which means that he had an object that was given to him by somebody else to watch, and when the other person claimed it, he said, \"I gave it back to you,\" or, \"You never gave it,\" whatever it was, he denied it, and he swore for that, and later we found out he was lying. So from now on, we can't trust him anymore to swear. So if he now is obligated to swear for whatever reason, he cannot swear, so the one that's claiming will swear and get his money. אפילו שבועת שווא, even if he was caught swearing false, nothing to do with another person. The previous two cases, שבועת העדות and שבועת הפקדון, were where he swore false against somebody. He lied to somebody and swore false. But now we're saying even if he didn't lie to anybody, he just swore false against Hashem. He swore he was going to do something and he didn't do it. So we see that this person takes a shevuah lightly. Therefore, if he ever is obligated to swear to somebody, we can't trust him with a shevuah, and in a case like that we would say שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל, that the one that's claiming would have to swear instead of him and would take his money. And it goes on even more. והיה אחד מהם משחק בקוביא, if one of them was a dice player, and we know that if you play with dice, you are פסול לעדות. So he's also not trusted with a shevuah. ומלוה בריבית, or he's a person that lent out money with ribit, with interest, and you're not allowed to take interest. So therefore, by doing that, he becomes פסול לעדות, we can't trust him when he testifies, and we also can't trust him when he swears. ומפריחי יונים, or he's a pigeon flyer, which is similar to משחק בקוביא. Because the reason a משחק בקוביא plays with dice is not trusted is because he is a gambler. ומפריחי יונים, which means a pigeon flyer, was also a gambler. There would be two people and they would fly their pigeons, have a race between their pigeons, and they would bet on it. So that is also gambling. And that would make a person פסול לעדות and פסול for a shevuah. וסוחרי שביעית, or the people who do business with fruit that grew during shemitah, and you're not allowed to do business with it. So in all these cases, he would not be trusted to swear. What would happen? שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל. So the one against him, his opponent, meaning the one that's claiming the money, would swear instead, and if he would swear, he would take his money. Then the Mishnah continues: היו שניהם חשודים. What would be if they were both suspected? The claimer and the defendant, both were suspected of swearing false. So you can't say that you give the shevuah over to the one that's claiming, because you can't trust him either. So what happens? חזרה שבועה למקומה. So the shevuah goes back to its own place. And the Gemara will explain what that means. Whether it means it goes away from both of them, it goes back to its original source to Hashem and no one swears, or the peshat is that since both of them can't swear, so we give the shevuah back to the original person who was supposed to swear, who is the defendant, and he swears, and if he swears, he doesn't pay. דברי רבי יוסי, that's the opinion of Rabbi Yosi. רבי מאיר אומר, but Rabbi Meir says יחלוקו, that they divide. You cannot have neither one swear, and therefore you divide, half loss goes for one and half of the loss is to the other. The next case it said in the Mishnah, where we say that the claimer is the one that swears, החנווני על פנקסו, the storekeeper with his book. כיצד, what is the case? לא שיאמר לו כתוב על פנקסי שאתה חייב לי מאתים זוז, it doesn't mean that a storekeeper comes to the owner to the person and says to him that, \"It's written in my book that you owe me two hundred זוז,\" that is not sufficient to make him swear, because the only time you make him swear is if there are רגלים לדבר, as we saw in the previous cases. When do we say that the claimer swears and takes the money? That's in the cases where there is very strong reason to assume that the money is owed to him. So then we say, all we want is to swear and then you will get your money. But if the storekeeper comes to the person and says to him, \"I see in my book that you owe me two hundred זוז,\" that is not sufficient to make the storekeeper swear and just get his money. So what is the case where we say that החנווני על פנקסו, so he swears and gets his money? Ela the case is, אומר לו, he says to him, a person says to the storekeeper, תן לבני בסאתים חטים, \"Give to my son two סאה of wheat,\" or he says to him, תן לפועלי בסלע מעות, \"Give to my worker the סלע מעות, money worth a סלע.\" A person hired workers, and instead of paying them, he says, \"Go to the storekeeper and take money on my account.\" And later on, הוא אומר נתתי, the storekeeper says, \"I gave, and therefore you owe me that money.\" והם אומרים, and they answer, or the son, or the case of the workers, they say, \"לא נטלנו, we never took, we never got it.\" So what is the din? הוא נשבע ונוטל, the storekeeper swears and gets his money, והם נשבעים ונוטלין, and the workers also swear and get their money. In other words, the baal habayit has to pay them both. The reason he has to pay the storekeeper because the storekeeper has a good claim: \"You told me to give, I gave.\" And even though the workers will have to swear that they never got, the storekeeper could say, \"I don't trust the workers with a shevuah. You trusted them, but I don't trust them, and therefore, that they swear has nothing to do with me. I claim that you owe me.\" So we say, \"Okay, so swear, and if you swear, you will get.\" And the same thing with the workers. The workers say, \"You had to give us, you never gave us. Either the storekeeper swore that he gave has nothing to do with us. We don't trust the storekeeper. You trusted him, you told him to give, but we don't trust him, and therefore his shevuah has nothing to do with us.\" So therefore the din is that the workers also swear and they they get. So here we have a case that both of them swear, and both of them take. אמר בן ננס, Ben Nanas said, כיצד, how could it be that אלו ואלו באין, that both of them come to the בית דין לידי שבועת שוא, in order to swear a false shevuah, which means that in a case like this, one of them is definitely lying. And Ben Nanas says that in a case where you know that one of the two is definitely lying, we cannot make them both swear. Ela, what is the din? הוא נוטל שלא בשבועה, he, the storekeeper, gets his money and doesn't have to swear, והן נוטלין שלא בשבועה, and the workers also get their money and don't swear. What is the din? If אמר לחנוני, if a person says to a storekeeper, תן לי בדינר פירות, give me fruit worth a דינר, ונתן לו, and he gave him the fruit, and אמר לו, and then the storekeeper says to him, תן לי את הדינר, now pay me, give me the דינר, אמר לו, so he says to him, נתתיו לך, I gave it to you already, ונתתו באונפלי, and you put it in the till. ישבע בעל הבית שנתן לו את הדינר, so the baal habayit has to swear that he gave him the dinar, and that way he doesn't have to pay him again. אמר לו, if he said to him, תן לי את הפירות, he says to the storekeeper, give me the fruit, he gave him the dinar and then he says, now give me the fruit. אמר לו, the storekeeper says to him, נתתים לך, I gave them to you already, והולכתם לתוך ביתך, and you took them home already. In this case, ישבע חנוני, the storekeeper swears and he doesn't have to give him the fruit now. רבי יהודה אומר, Rabbi Yehuda says, כל שהפירות בידו ידו על העליונה, that the one who has the fruit, his hand is on top, which means he argues against the first case. In the first case where it says the baal habayit swears that he gave him the dinar, and he doesn't have to pay him the dinar, so Rabbi Yehuda comes and says, no, that he doesn't have to swear, because it is not customary for a person to give away the fruit till he gets his money. Unless he sells on credit, but then he gives it on credit, but if he's not selling on credit, so the custom is that first you get your money, then the storekeeper gives the fruit. And therefore, when the storekeeper claims that he didn't give him the money, we don't trust the storekeeper. Since the baal habayit already has the fruit in his hands, so ידו על העליונה, whose hand is on top, which means the hand of the baal habayit on the top, and the baal habayit doesn't have to swear in order to become patur from paying him the money, but we just assume that he paid him without him swearing and he doesn't have to give him the money. Then the Mishnah continues, אמר לשולחני, if a person says to a money exchanger, תן לי בדינר מעות, exchange for me for a dinar into מעות. מעות are small copper change. And he says here I'm giving you a dinar, now I want you to exchange it for the value of a dinar in small change, ונתן לו, and he gave him the change, אמר לו, then the שולחני says to him, תן לי את הדינר, now give me the dinar. אמר לו, the baal habayit says to him, נתתיו לך, I gave it to you already, ונתתו באונפלי, you put it in your till, you put it in your bag, the din is that ישבע בעל הבית, the baal habayit has to swear that he gave him the money, and he is patur from paying. What happens if the case was the other way? נתן לו את הדינר, first the baal habayit gave him the dinar. אמר לו, then he says to the money exchanger, תן לי את המעות, now give me the small change. אמר לו, he says to him, נתתים לך, I gave them to you, והשלכתם לתוך כיסך, and you put it in your pocket. In this case, ישבע שולחני, so the shulchani, the money exchanger, has to swear that he gave already, and he is patur from giving. Rabbi Yehuda omer, Rabbi Yehuda says, אין דרך שולחני, it is not the custom of the שולחני, ליתן איסר, to give an isar, which is the small change, עד שיטול דינר, until he first takes the dinar. And therefore, in the first case, where he claims, I never got the dinar from you, Rabbi Yehuda says that the baal habayit does not have to swear. Before we said the baal habayit swears that he already gave the dinar and he's patur, so Rabbi Yehuda says he doesn't have to swear, because it is pretty sure that he already gave the dinar, because otherwise the shulchani would not have given him the change unless he would have first gotten the dinar. And since we see that the baal habayit has the change in his hands, so we are pretty sure that he gave the dinar already, and therefore, in order for the baal habayit to become patur, he doesn't have to swear, he is just patur without a shevuah.

Then the Mishnah continues, כשם שאמרו, just like the chachamim said, הפוגמת כתובתה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה, that if a woman is pogen in her ketubah, which means she makes a blemish on the ketubah, which means that if she comes with a ketubah to claim that she wants to get paid, but she admits that part of it was paid, and the husband says that I paid you everything, so in a case like this, the ketubah is not valid anymore. She cannot use the shtar, the document ketubah, to collect on this document, because this ketubah definitely is not worth anything, because she herself admits that part of it was paid. So in a case like that the din is, לא תפרע אלא בשבועה, in order for her to collect the rest of the money that she wants, she must swear. And the chachamim also said, ועד אחד מעידה שהיא פרועה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה, that if a woman wants to collect the ketubah, but one witness testifies that it was paid already, so then she has to swear in order to get paid. Also the chachamim said, דין, מנכסים משועבדים ומנכסי יתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה, that if she wants to collect from נכסים משועבדים, if she wants to collect from property that's now at this point not in the possession of her husband that owed her the money, but it was sold. In other words, this property was mortgaged to her ketubah, but when she comes to collect it, it is not anymore in the possession of the husband, but it was sold before. So the din is that you're allowed to collect from נכסים משועבדים, that if you are owed money with a document, then you are able to collect from נכסים משועבדים. But the din is that when she comes to collect from the נכסים משועבדים, she has to first swear before she is able to collect. Or if she wants to collect from נכסי יתומים, her husband died and she wants to collect from the ketubah, from the estate of her husband that's now in the possession of the children, of the yesomim, so also she could collect only with a shevuah. ושלא בפניו לא תפרע אלא בשבועה, חכמים also said that if she's going to collect from her husband, but not in front of him, he is away, and through the בית דין she's going to collect from his estate, she only could collect with a shevuah. So just like the chachamim said the din concerning all these cases that she could only collect with a shevuah, וכן, so too do the chachamim say, היתומים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה, that when yesomim come to collect, if children, orphans come to collect because they claim that a certain person owed their father money, and they want to collect the loan from that person, so the only way is that they could collect is through swearing. What do they swear? But since it wasn't owed to them, so how do they know whether the money is still owed or not? So what can they swear? So they swear, שבועה שלא פקדנו אבא ולא אמר לנו אבא. They swear that our father didn't command us and our father didn't tell us that this was paid. In other words, as far as we know, it's not paid. We have a document which shows that you owe money, and our father never told us that he got paid for that loan. And they also have to swear that ושלא מצינו בין שטרותיו של אבא ששטר זה פרוע, that we didn't find any document amongst the documents of our father that this document was paid, which means that they have to swear that we didn't find a receipt for this loan amongst the documents of our father. And after they swear that, then they could get paid. Rabbi Yochanan בברייתא אומר, Rabbi Yochanan in a baraisa says, אפילו נולד הבן לאחר מיתת האב, that even if the son was born after the father died, הרי זה נשבע ונוטל, so he swears that he didn't find any document amongst the documents that proved that it was paid, and he takes. Even though he cannot swear the first shevuah, he cannot swear that my father didn't command me that this was paid, because when he was born his father died already, but nevertheless he could swear the other shevuah, that he didn't find any documents, which means any receipt showing that this was paid, and after he swears he is able to collect. אמר Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אם יש עדים, if there are witnesses, שאמר האב בשעת מיתתו, that the father said at the time of his death, שטר זה אינו פרוע, that this שטר, this document is not paid, נוטל שלא בשבועה, then he is able to take without a shevuah. Then the Mishnah continues, ואלו נשבעין שלא בטענה, these are the people who have to swear even though there was no definite claim. השותפין, partners, if one partner suspects the other one of stealing, but he doesn't have a definite claim to say you took this or you took that, he could make him swear. והאריסין, an aris, that's a worker, a person who leases a field from an owner, and the payment he gets is that he gives him a certain percentage and he takes for himself a certain percentage of what grows. So if the owner of the field suspects the aris of stealing, even though he doesn't have a definite ta'anah, he could make him swear. והאפוטרופין, or the administrator, a person appoints an administrator to take care of his finances, whether it is for yesomim or for his own finances, and if he suspects maybe he stole, he's able to make him swear. והאשה הנושאת והנותנת בתוך הבית, or a woman, a wife who takes care of the affairs in the house, או בן הבית, or the son of the house, which means one of the family members who takes care of the household. So in all these cases, if he says to him, אמר לו, he says to him, מה אתה טוען עלי, what are you claiming against me? And he answers him, רצוני שתשבע לי, all I want is that you should swear to me, chayav, he is chayav to swear, he's obligated to swear. חלקו השותפין והאריסין, if the partners or the אריסין divided, they split the partnership, אין יכול להשביעו, so then already he cannot make him swear. Which means if after they divided already and each one took his share, later he comes and says, well, maybe you stole from me, so if he doesn't have a definite ta'anah, then he cannot make the other one swear. נתחייב לו שבועה ממקום אחר, but if there was a shevuah that was imposed on him from a different place, which means for a different reason he had to swear to him, מגלגלין עליו את הכל, then we already put upon him all the rest, which means then he could even make him swear for this which he doesn't have a definite ta'anah. Since he has to swear already for other ta'anah, he can make for this also. Then the Mishnah says, והשביעית משמטת את השבועה. Shemittah makes the shevuah drop. But just like by a loan, the din is that if you owe somebody money and Shemittah comes around you are patur from paying, so too if he has a claim against you and the din was that you have to swear, if Shemittah passes you are patur from the shevuah, because the shevuah is instead of your payment and since you are patur from paying if you would have owed, so you are patur from the shevuah.

Now the Gemara will explain the Mishnah. It says in the משנה, כל הנשבעין שבתורה נשבעין ולא משלמין, all those that have to swear from the Torah, the din is that they swear and don't pay, which means the defendant swears and he is patur from paying. Minalan, how do we know that? And the Gemara answers, אמר קרא, because the pasuk says, ולקח בעליו ולא ישלם, let the owner take it and not pay. The beginning of the pasuk is שבועת ה' תהיה בין שניהם, the שבועה of ה' should be between them. Then the pasuk continues, ולקח בעליו, let the owner take it, ולא ישלם, not to pay. What does that mean, let him take what? Let him take the shevuah that was given to him and then the one that borrowed should not pay. So from here we know that מי שעליו לשלם, the one that had to pay, לו שבועה, he is the one that has to swear. Because the pasuk says that the בעליו takes the shevuah, and that's all, and he doesn't get paid. So obviously who gave the shevuah? The one that was supposed to pay, with the shevuah instead of the payment. So from there we see whenever there's a חיוב שבועה, the defendant is the one that has to swear. But the Mishnah continues, ואלו נשבעין ונוטלין וכולי, these are the ones that do swear and take, where the claimer is the one that swears and he takes his money. And the Mishnah mentions a few cases. One of them was a שכיר. The one that claims that he wasn't paid his wages and the בעל הבית says that he did pay him, so the din is the שכיר swears he didn't get paid and he gets his money. So the Gemara asks, מאי שנא שכיר דתקינו ליה רבנן דנשתבע ושקיל? Why is a שכיר, a hired worker, different that the רבנן made this תקנה that he should swear and get his money? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, said Rav Yehuda said in the name of שמואל, הלכות גדולות שנו כאן. Big halachot were learned here, this is a special big din. But in the meantime, before the Gemara explains, the Gemara asks, halachot, how can you call this halachot? Usually the expression halachot refers to halachah leMoshe miSinai, to those dinim that were handed down from Moshe Rabbeinu from Sinai. Now these are not halachot handed down from Moshe Rabbeinu, this is a תקנה of the חכמים. תקנת חכמים נינהו, הלכתא נינהו, are they halachot? אלא the Gemara says, אימא תקנות גדולות שנו כאן. Big תקנות, big established תקנות of the חכמים were said here. But the Gemara asks, since you say גדולות, they are big תקנות, מכלל, that proves that איכא קטנות, that some other תקנות are small. Now which תקנות of the חכמים are considered small תקנות? They are all big תקנות. אלא אמר רב נחמן, therefore Rav Nachman said, אמר שמואל in the name of Shmuel, that what does he mean? תקנות קבועות שנו כאן. There is an established תקנות here, there is something very established and very important here. But what? דעקרו רבנן לשבועה מבעל הבית, the רבנן took away the שבועה from the בעל הבית ושדיוה אשכיר, and they put it on the worker, משום כדי חייו, because of the life of the שכיר, which means the רבנן wanted to help out the hired worker. It should be easier for him to get his money, so instead of saying that the בעל הבית should swear and not have to pay, the חכמים made it easier for the שכיר so he should be able to have parnasah easier, he should be able to earn his livelihood easier, that he swears and he gets his money. But the Gemara asks, משום כדי חייו דשכיר קנסינן ליה לבעל הבית? Is it possible that because of the livelihood of the hired worker we will fine the בעל הבית? In other words, really the בעל הבית has to swear. We're just doing a favor to the שכיר, and we make him swear. But how can we do that? In order to do a favor to the שכיר, we should fine and hound the בעל הבית? The בעל הבית could claim, why should I not swear, I'm ready to swear, and if I swear I'm פטור. Is because you want to do him a favor you're going to take away my right? So the Gemara says, בעל הבית גופיה, the בעל הבית himself, ניחא ליה דנשתבע שכיר, he is also happier that the שכיר will swear, ושקיל, and he should get his money, כי היכי דאיגרו ליה פועלים, in order to be easier for him to hire workers. Every בעל הבית is happy that if ever something like this will come around, the דין should be that the שכיר should swear and get his money for the benefit so it will be easier for people to hire themselves out, so the בעלי בתים will be able to hire workers easier. So the בעל הבית himself is happy that the דין is that the שכיר should swear, so he knows that whenever he'll have to hire workers, the workers won't be afraid to hire themselves out because they will know if just in case there will be a dispute that it will be easy for them to get the money. So the בעל הבית himself is happy about that. But the Gemara asks, adrabah, just say the opposite, שכיר ניחא ליה דנשתבע בעל הבית ונפקע, isn't the worker happy that the baal habayit should have to swear and the one that has the work done for him will no matter what hire the worker. In other words, the workers are not afraid that they will not find jobs easy, because Because if the job has to be done, the baal habayit will hire him no matter what. So the Gemara asks, שכיר נמי על כרחיה מיתגר, so if so, well don't we say also that the sachir will hire himself out no matter what? Why did we say before that the baal habayit is happy that the sachir should swear and get his money, so it'll be easier for them to hire themselves out? Why, isn't it the same sevara? That a person is looking for work no matter what will hire himself out. So why is the baal habayit happy that it should be easier for the sachir to collect his money because otherwise he won't be able to find workers? He'll find workers anyway, because the workers who need work will hire themselves out no matter what the din will be. אלא, therefore the Gemara says there's a different reason: בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו. The reason we trust more the worker and make him swear and get his money rather than the baal habayit, because the baal habayit is busy with his workers, which means he has to pay a lot of workers, and therefore he could make a mistake and think that he paid him already when he really paid other people and not him. So therefore there is more reason to say the baal habayit made a mistake rather than the worker. That's why we say that the worker swears and gets his money rather than the baal habayit should swear and be patur. But the Gemara asks, if so, וליתיב ליה בלא שבועה, let's give him without a shevuah. If we trust the worker over the baal habayit, so why don't we say that if the worker claims he wasn't paid, he should get his money without a shevuah because we will say that the baal habayit probably thinks he paid him when really he paid other workers and not him? And the Gemara answers the reason we make him swear, כדי להפיס דעתו של בעל הבית, in order to appease the baal habayit, because otherwise the baal habayit will complain that why do you believe him and make me pay? So we say, okay, let him swear, and after he swears, that's when he gets his money. But then the Gemara asks, וליתיב ליה בעדים, why shouldn't the chachamim make a din that a person should not be able to pay his workers unless he does it in front of witnesses? Then everything will fall off. Like this we say maybe he made a mistake, he thinks he paid him. But if the din will be that you only have to pay in front of work- of witnesses, so then if he will have witnesses, then we will know for sure that he paid. If he won't have witnesses, then we will know for sure he didn't pay, and he will have to pay without the worker swearing. But the Gemara says, טרחא ליה מילתא, it's too much of a bother to always have to find witnesses. But then the Gemara asks, וליתיב ליה מעיקרא, why shouldn't the chachamim make a din that he should have to pay his worker in the morning before they start their work? So then we will know, in the evening, that if he claims that he didn't pay him yet, he will not get anything. He won't make him swear, but he won't pay him either. Because if every baal habayit has to pay before the work starts, so then this worker definitely would not have worked if he wouldn't have got paid. Since he did work, so we know for sure he got paid, so if he claims his money now, we will know that he's lying, and he will not get his money, but we will not have any shevuah involved. But the Gemara answers, שניהם רוצים בהקפה, that both the baal habayit and the worker would rather not get paid in the beginning, but leave it for the evening. The baal habayis is because sometimes doesn't have money in the morning, and therefore it's easier for him if he doesn't have to pay in the morning. The worker also is afraid that if he's going to get his money in the morning, so he might use up the money during the day before he's finished for the day. He'd rather wait with his money till the evening, and therefore the chachamim didn't make this takanah that you should have to pay your workers in the morning. But then the Gemara asks, אי הכי, if so, if the reason the chachamim took away the shevuah from the baal habayis and put it on the worker is because the baal habayis is busy with his workers and maybe made a mistake and thinks he paid him already, אפילו קצץ נמי, even if the dispute is not over whether he paid him or not, but it is over how much money they made up at the beginning to pay, the din should be the same. And why don't we say, since he's busy with his workers, he doesn't remember exactly how much he made up, and we should always trust the שכיר when he claims that they made up to pay a certain amount of money? אלמה תניא, why did we learn, אומן אומר שתים קצצת לי, says the braita, that if the worker says, \"You promised, you made up to pay me two,\" והלה אומר, and the baal habayis says, לא קצצתי לך אלא אחת, \"I only made up to pay you one,\" המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, the one that's trying to get the money out, he has to prove it. In other words, the worker has to prove that he made up to pay him two, and as long as he doesn't prove it, which means he doesn't bring witnesses, then the din is that he only pays him one. So why don't we say the same thing? That since the baal habayis is busy with his workers, so probably he doesn't remember exactly what he made up, since there are other workers that he made up with them differently, so he doesn't remember, he thinks he made up with him for one and really he made up for two. So why don't we say that the שכיר should be believed, let him swear, and he should be believed? And here we see that the din is not so. The din is that he only pays him one unless the worker has witnesses that he made up for two. But the Gemara answers, קציצה מידכר דכיר ליה. How much you make up lechatchilah, that definitely he remembers. When do we say a baal habayis doesn't remember, that is whether he paid bichlal or not, since he pays others, he doesn't remember if he paid him. But how much money he made up to pay him, that for sure he remembers, and therefore there is no reason to assume that the baal habayis is making a mistake rather than the שכיר, and therefore, since we don't know who's right, the din is המוציא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. Then the Gemara asks: אי הכי, if so that the reason you say that when the שכיר claims, \"You didn't pay me,\" and he says, \"I paid you,\" we took away the shevuah from the baal habayis and gave it to the שכיר because the baal habayis is busy with his workers, אפילו עבר זמנו נמי. The same din should be even if the time passed, which means the time of collection passed, still the שכיר should be believed over the baal habayis. So, there is a certain time when we call the time of collection. It says in the Gemara in Bava Metzia in פרק המקבל דף קי, עמוד ב, a שכיר יום, a person who was hired to work for the day, his time of collection is all night. A שכיר לילה, a person who was hired to work through the night, his time of collection is all next day. So the din should be that even if that time of collection passed and the שכיר claims, \"You didn't pay me,\" still we should say that he is believed, so all he has to do is to swear and collect his money. אלמה תניא, why did you learn in a ברייתא: עבר זמנו, if the time of collection passed ולא נתן לו, and he didn't give him, הרי זה אינו נשבע ונוטל. Then the din is not that he swears, that the worker swears and gets his money, because חזקה there is an established fact that אין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין. A baal habayis would not be עובר the עבירה of בל תלין, of having the wages stay over the time. The din is that if a baal habayis does not pay his worker when the time of payment is there and he lets the time pass, he's עובר on the לאו of לא תלין and he's not allowed to let the wages sleep over its time. So therefore the din is that if the time passed and then the שכיר says that you didn't pay me, here the din is that we don't say that the שכיר, the worker swears and gets his money, because here we assume that probably the baal habayis is right that he did pay, because we don't suspect a person being עובר on a עבירה, transgressing the עבירה of בל תלין. אבל ואמאי, didn't you say בעל הבית טריד בפועליו, that the reason we believe the שכיר over the baal habayis is because the baal habayis is busy with his workers. So, it's not because we are afraid he's lying. When could we make this difference whether it was in the time of payment or after the time of payment? Only if we suspect that the baal habayis is lying. So then we could say, we suspect he's lying and that's why the שכיר is believed. But if the time passed, so then it's not only a lie, so then it's more than that, then he's עובר on the עבירה of לא תלין and that we don't suspect. Then we would understand. But we said the reason why we believe the שכיר is not because we suspect the baal habayis is lying. We suspect the baal habayis forgot because he's busy with his workers and he thinks he paid him and he really didn't. So in that case, what difference does it make whether it's before the time or after the time? And the reason we gave why after the time we don't believe the שכיר is because the baal habayis would not be עובר on בל תלין. But if the reason is because we are afraid that he forgot, that has nothing to do with בל תלין, he thinks he paid. So even if the time passed, still we should believe the שכיר and not the baal habayis because we assume that the baal habayis thinks that he paid and really he didn't, and the reason he could make such a mistake is because he was busy with his workers. The Gemara says, הני מילי, when do we say he's busy with his worker and he makes a mistake? מקמי דלימטי זמן חיוביה, before the time of payment comes, before the time when you are obligated to pay comes. אבל מטי זמן חיוביה, but when the time of payment comes, רמי אנפשיה, he puts himself to it ומדכר, and he reminds himself. So even though before the time passes we believe the sachir because we say he forgot, because he thinks he paid him and really he didn't. But when the time of payment is about to pass, we assume that he probably will sit down and think about it again and try to remind himself. And if he really didn't pay, he would have reminded himself that he didn't pay. And therefore, if he still claims afterwards that he didn't pay, so then we don't say he made a mistake, the only possibility is that maybe he's lying, and that we don't suspect, because we don't suspect that he would be over on לא תלין. But then the Gemara asks: וכי שכיר עובר משום לא תגזול? Why do we say we'd rather believe the baal habayis, because if he is lying, he'll be over on לא תלין? But why don't you say that we'd rather believe the sachir, because if he is lying, he'll be over on לא תגזול, he'll be over on stealing. So why the more sevara is to say that the baal habayis is not lying because he wouldn't be over on the aveirah of לא תלין, rather than saying the sachir is not lying because he wouldn't be over on the aveirah of לא תגזול? And the Gemara answers, לגבי בעל הבית, איכא תרי חזקות. To believe the baal habayis we have two reasons, we have two chazakot. חדא, דאין בעל הבית עובר בבל תלין, one reason is because we assume the baal habayis would not be over on לא תלין on not paying on time. וחדא, דאין שכיר משהה שכרו, there's another chazakah, there's another established fact, that a worker does not wait with his payment. And therefore, since the worker did not claim his payment till after the time passed, so there's a strong reason to say that probably he got paid, because if he wouldn't get paid, he wouldn't wait till now. So that's another reason to say that the baal habayis is not lying. So there are two reasons to say the baal habayis is not lying. There's only one reason to say that the sachir is not lying, and that is that we assume that he's not over on לא תגזול. So when we have two sevarot against one, we follow the two, and therefore we say probably the baal habayis is not lying. And therefore, the din is that if he's claiming his salary, his wages, after the time had passed, we don't believe the sachir and we believe the בעל הבית, and the בעל הבית does not have to pay. Then the Gemara says, אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל, Rav Nachman said

in the name of שמואל, לא שנו, the דין of the Mishnah was not said אלא ששכרו בעדים, only if he hired him in front of witnesses. There are witnesses that saw that he said, \"You want to come and work for me?\" and he agreed. So then we say that later on the שכיר says, \"You didn't pay me,\" so we believe the שכיר, so he has to swear and gets his money. אבל שכרו שלא בעדים, but if he hired him without witnesses, so then we say, מתוך שיכול לומר לו, לא שכרתיך מעולם, since he's able to say to him, \"I never hired you,\" יכול לומר לו, he's also able to say to him, שכרתיך, \"I hired you,\" ונתתי לך שכרך, \"and I gave you your wages.\" He has a מיגו. Since he could have claimed a different טענה, and he would have been believed and would have been פטור from paying, so we say if he would want to lie, he could have lied a better lie. He could have said, \"I never hired you.\" Since he doesn't say that, obviously he is not lying, and therefore he is believed when he says, \"I paid you.\" But this is only if there were no witnesses that he hired him, so then he could have said, \"I never hired you.\" But if he hired him in front of witnesses, so he could not have said, \"I didn't hire you,\" so he doesn't have the מיגו. So then we say that we don't believe the בעל הבית, but we believe the שכיר that he didn't get paid. אמר ליה Rav Yitzchak, Rav Yitzchak said to him, ישר, you are right. וכן אמר רבי יוחנן, and Rabbi Yochanan also said that this דין is true. And the Gemara asks, by him saying just Rabbi Yochanan also says this is right, מכלל does that prove דפליג ריש לקיש, that Reish Lakish argues? Because since he said that Rabbi Yochanan also holds like that, obviously somebody argued against him. Who is the one that usually argues with Rabbi Yochanan? This is Reish Lakish. But the Gemara is asking, does that mean that Reish Lakish argues on this דין? The Gemara's answer is, איכא דאמרי, some say, מישתיא הוה שתי ושתיק ליה, that when Rav Yitzchak was in the ישיבה and he heard Rabbi Yochanan say this, Reish Lakish was there too, but Reish Lakish was drinking water at the time when Rabbi Yochanan said it. So therefore, he couldn't argue against him, so he was quiet. And Rav Yitzchak walked out, and Rav Yitzchak didn't know what happened later on, whether Reish Lakish later on argued or Reish Lakish agreed. So that's why it's no raayah that Reish Lakish argues. איכא דאמרי, some say, מישח הוה שייל ושתיק ליה, that the custom of Reish Lakish was that whenever he used to be in the Beit Midrash and Rabbi Yochanan used to say a din, he didn't argue right away. He would wait, he would let Rabbi Yochanan say his whole din with all the details. After everything was finished, that's when he would start talking, but till then he was quiet. So Rav Yitzchak heard Rabbi Yochanan say the din, and he heard Reish Lakish being quiet, and he walked out before it was finished. So he doesn't know what happened later on, whether Reish Lakish argued against Rabbi Yochanan, or Reish Lakish didn't argue against Rabbi Yochanan. The Gemara says, איתמר נמי, we also learned, אמר רב מנשיא בר זביד אמר רב, Rav Menashia bar Zevid said in the name of רב, לא שנו, the din of the Mishnah that we trust the שכיר and we make him swear and get his money was only said אלא ששכרו בעדים, if he hired him with witnesses. אבל שכרו שלא בעדים, but if he hired him without witnesses, so מתוך שיכול לומר לו, since he could say to him, לא שכרתיך מעולם, \"I never hired you,\" יכול לומר לו, he could also say to him, שכרתיך, \"I hired you,\" ונתתי לך שכרך, \"I gave you your wages.\" He has a migo, and therefore the baal habayit should be believed. אמר רמי בר חמא, Rami bar Chama said, כמה מעליא הא שמעתא, how good is this din. אמר ליה רבא, so Rava said to him, מאי מעליותא, what's so good about it? On the contrary, I could show you how this din is not right, because if this din is right, אם כן, if so, שבועת שומרים דחייב רחמנא, היכי משכחת לה? We know the Torah obligated a שומר to swear, how's it possible? For instance, a שומר שכר, a person who watches something for somebody else for pay, and the din is he's chayav for גניבה ואבידה, if it got lost or stolen, he's obligated to pay, but if it happened b'ones, if an accident happened to it, then he is patur, but he has to swear that it was b'ones, and then he becomes patur. But how can the din be such a din that he has to swear? מתוך שיכול לומר לו, since he could say to him, לא היו דברים מעולם, this never happened, you never gave it to me to watch, יכול לומר לו, he should be able to say to him then, too, that by accident it got broken or whatever happened to it. If you accept such a miggo, then every shomer should have such a miggo. So whenever a shomer claims a taanah that he is patur with this taanah, why should he have to swear? Why don't we believe him because he has a miggo? He could have said you never gave it to me, and he would have been believed. So now, too, when he says you gave it to me, but it happened b'ones, for instance, by the case of a שומר שכר, he should be patur. And since we do find in the Torah the din of a שבועת השומרים, obviously we don't say this miggo. So how can you say this miggo, the din of this miggo is a good din, a good sevara, when here it seems that it's not a good sevara? And the Gemara answers, there is a possibility of שבועת השומרים, דאפקדיה ליה בעדים, that he gave it to him to watch in front of witnesses. So then he couldn't say that you never gave it to me, so he doesn't have the miggo, so that's when he has to swear. So from the fact that Torah says that there is a din of שבועת השומרים is no re'ayah we don't say this miggo, because maybe the din of the Torah with שבועת השומרים is only when there is no miggo, when he gave it to him in front of witnesses. But the Gemara asks there's still a miggo! מתוך שיכול לומר לו החזרתי לך, since he could say to him, \"I returned it to you,\" יכול לומר לו נאנסו, he should be able to say to him that it got stolen or lost by accident, an accident happened to it. In other words, there's a different migo. Even if it was given in front of edim, there is still a migo, because if he would have said, \"I returned it to you,\" he would be patur. So now that he says that נאנסו, an אונס happened to it, he should also be believed and he should be patur from a shevuah. And since we say that there is a חיוב שבועה, obviously we don't say this migo. But the Gemara says, \"No, דאפקדיה ליה בשטרא.\" The case could be when he gave it to him with a document. So here, he cannot say that \"I returned it to you,\" because if he would have returned it to him, what's the document doing in his hand? He should have given him him back the document. So in a case like this, he has no migo, because he can't say that \"I returned it to you,\" because the other one has a document that he gave it to him. But since he has no migo, so when he claims נאנסו, he has to swear. So we have no re'ayah from this din of שבועת השומרים that we don't say the migo. And the Gemara says: מכלל, from this we see, that both of them, meaning רמי בר חמא and רבה, סבירא להו, they both hold, המפקיד אצל חבירו בעדים, that if you hire some, you give something to watch to somebody else in front of witnesses, אין צריך להחזירו לו בעדים, you don't have to return it in front of witnesses. But if you give it to him בשטר, you give it to him with a document, צריך להחזירו לו בעדים, you do have to return it in front of witnesses. Because here we see that when he said to him that he has no migo, and the reason was he said because it could be talking in a case where he gave it to him in front of witnesses, the Gemara asks he still has a migo that he could have said, \"I returned it to you.\" Now if the din would be that when you give it to him in front of witnesses, you must return it in front of witnesses, so what kind of question did he ask him? That he still could have a migo he returned it? He doesn't have a migo, he couldn't claim he returned it, because he would have had to do it in front of witnesses. Since he asked him the question, and he accepted the question, and therefore he had to answer him that the case is where he gave it to him in front of a, with a שטר, that shows that both of them hold, that even if you give it to him in front of witnesses, he doesn't have to return it in front of witnesses. And therefore, if he gives it to him in front of witnesses, later on he could have said, \"I returned it to you,\" even though that there has no witnesses, because he did not have to return in front of witnesses. So from this discussion, we see that both of them hold this din, that if you give an object to somebody to watch in front of witnesses, you don't have to return it in front of witnesses. On the other hand, we see, since later on he answered him that the reason he has no migo is because he gave it to him with a document, and that was accepted answer, that in a case like that he cannot say that \"I returned it to you,\" so that proved that if you give somebody to watch something with a document, so then when he returns it, he must do it in front of witnesses. And if he didn't do it in front of witnesses, he can always say that you didn't return it to me. Because we see that in that case they both agreed that he has no migo, that if he gave it to him with a document, later on he could not have claimed that \"I returned it to you\" in order to have a migo in a case where he says נאנסו. And since this is an accepted answer by both, so we see that both Rami bar Chama and Rabbah, that they both hold, that if you give him to watch with a document, you're only able to return it in front of witnesses, and if he doesn't return it in front of witnesses, then he is not believed when he says, \"I returned it to you.\" Continuing with the Gemara said in the beginning, that the Chachamim made a special תקנה concerning the שכיר. And the Gemara uses a lashon: עקרו רבנן שבועה מבעל הבית, the Rabbanan tore, took away the shevuah from the baal habayit, and they put it on the sachir.

The Tosafot asks a kashya: how can the Gemara use a lashon that they took away the shevuah from the baal habayit and put it on the sachir, as if saying that originally the baal habayit has to swear, the Chachamim took it away and put it on the sachir, when the case mentioned here is a case of a כופר הכל? The sachir says to the baal habayit, \"You didn't pay me the wages.\" And he says, \"I did.\" So he's a כופר הכל. Now, a כופר הכל is patur from a shevuah, so originally there is no shevuah at all. Techilah the Chachamim established a din of a shevuah, and they said who should swear, not the baal habayit, but the sachir. But we can't say they took away the shevuah from the baal habayit and gave it to the sachir, because the baal habayit never had to swear! Even though we learned before that Rav Nachman established the שבועת היסת for a כופר הכל, that even if you deny completely, nevertheless mid'rabbanan you have to swear a שבועת היסת, but this was established much later, this was established through Rav Nachman! But in the time of the Mishnah, there was no shevuah for a כופר הכל. So if not for this special takanah, then what would be the din? No one has to swear! So what is the peshat in the Mishnah that in this case the Chachamim took the shevuah away from the baal habayit and gave it to the שכיר? So Tosafot says that it doesn't mean takeh that he originally had to swear, but since the chachamim, when they did establish that in this case, when there is an argument between the שכיר and the baal habayit, that there has to be a shevuah, the shevuah would belong more to the baal habayit than to the שכיר. Since the baal habayit is the one that is denying it, he's the defendant, and normally a defendant has to swear, so it would make more sense that when the chachamim did, for some reason, establish a shevuah here, the shevuah should be for the baal habayit. And therefore, it makes sense to say that the chachamim took it away from the baal habayit and gave it to the שכיר. It doesn't mean that at one point it was on the baal habayit, and later on it was taken away from him and put onto the שכיר, but it means that this shevuah that should have been established on the baal habayit was established on the שכיר instead. So, that's the peshat in the לשון עקרו רבנן שבועה מבעל הבית, they took it away from baal habayit. And another answer Tosafot gives that really, this din applies also in the case of a מודה במקצת. Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishnah learned it's only by a מודה במקצת, that the chachamim learned it applies not only by a מודה במקצת, but everyone agrees that in the case of a מודה במקצת the din also applies, which means that if the שכיר says to him you owe me the wages and he says I paid you part of it, so then also the שכיר is believed, he swears and takes. Now here definitely the din is that the baal habayit originally was supposed to swear because he's a מודה במקצת, and nevertheless, the chachamim took the shevuah away from him and put it on the שכיר. And because of a מודה במקצת, the Gemara uses this לשון also in the case of a כופר הכל. Concerning the reason the Gemara gave that why takeh did they put it on the שכיר, because the בעל הבית is busy with his workers, since he paid many workers he could make a mistake and think he paid this one too, so Tosafos says lichora this should only be in the case where he has many workers. Why is the דין that even if the בעל הבית has only this one worker, still we say that the worker is believed, and the worker swears and gets his money? But lichora here we cannot say the sevara of a בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו. And Tosafos says, so here we use the לשון, this דין of לא פלוג. There is a klal that a lot of times that the חכמים establish certain דינים, and even if there are specific cases where the דין should not be because the reason for the דין does not apply, nevertheless we say לא פלוג, the חכמים did not make any differences. Since they established the דין in a certain case or in many cases in one way, they didn't want to make the difference that in certain cases it should apply and certain cases it shouldn't apply, this דין applies to all cases, and therefore here too. Since in the case where he has many workers there is a sevara to say the שכיר should swear, so even if there's only one worker, the דין remains that the שכיר swear. Later on, what the Gemara says, there's a difference whether he asks, he claims the money before the time passed or after the time passed. And the Gemara says before the time passed, then we say that we believe the שכיר because the בעל הבית is busy with his workers and probably made a mistake. But after the time, we say then רמי אנפשיה ומדכר, he reminds himself, and therefore there we don't believe believe the שכיר. So Tosafos asks a kashya, if so, why isn't the דין that we should always have to wait until the next day, and if ever a worker comes to claim the money from his בעל הבית during the time of the חיוב, let's tell him let's wait till tomorrow, since we have a klal that by the time it passes, so then the בעל הבית reminds himself, so then we'll see, if he will remind himself later, then he will pay him, and if he won't remind himself later later, then probably he didn't make a mistake, but the בעל הבית is sure that he did pay, and then the דין would be the שכיר the שכיר would have to bring a ראיה. Why is the din that when he comes within the time of payment to claim, right away we say he swears and gets his money? Why don't we say he shouldn't swear, wait till the next day, or he'll remind himself, and if not, he will believe the baal habayit as much as he would believe the שכיר? And also Tosafot asks a kashya, if we say that when the time passes, the baal habayit is able to remind himself, so then the whole din falls off. The whole reason we said that the baal habayit doesn't swear, really he had to swear, but the chachamim said let the שכיר swear because the baal habayit is making a mistake, but if we will make him swear, then definitely he will try to remind himself and he'll remind himself, just like we say after this זמן חיוב we don't believe the שכיר because we say he reminded himself, so if we're going to say that even in in the time the baal habayit has to swear, the חיוב שבועה itself will make him remind himself. And Tosafot answers that if the שכיר comes within the time and claims the money and the baal habayit right away denies it, so we can't say let's wait till tomorrow and he should remind himself, because since he started denying, then he's not going to admit. And then he will not really remember because he will not want to remember because he knows that he originally denied, and when he'll remind himself later and he'll admit, people will say, \"Look, you're a liar, you lied before,\" so then a person will not even remind himself either, and therefore it will not help to wait till the next day. And another side Tosafot asks that this chazakah that we say that the baal habayit later on after the time will remind himself, and the Gemara gives the reason is because he will not be עובר on בל תלין, this only helps when there is the other chazakah. The Gemara gives the other chazakah that a שכיר does not wait for his salary. So, therefore, in a case where he started claiming after the time, we have that chazakah. We tell the שכיר, \"Why did you wait till now? Mistama you already got paid, and now you want to get some more.\" But if he started claiming within the time, so even if we're going to wait for the next day, the chazakah won't be there, because we can't say it's a chazakah if the שכיר claims in time and that's why mistama he's lying, because he did claim in time. So, we will be left only with one chazakah that the baal habayit does not עובר on בל תלין. For that itself, the Gemara says later on is not enough, and therefore it wouldn't help if we would wait for the next day. But the Gemara said later on that if he hired him without עדים, then the שכיר is not believed because the baal habayit has a migo. He could said I never hired you. And therefore, he is believed when he says that I paid you. Tosafot asks the kashya, what kind of migo is this? Lechorah, migo means when we suspect a person of lying, so we say, if he has a migo, it just proves that he's not lying, because if he was going to lie, he could have lied a better lie. But in this case, we're not suspecting that he's lying, we're suspecting that he doesn't remember. Being בעל הבית טרוד בפועליו, so he doesn't remember, he thinks he paid him, that's why he's denying it. So what does a migo help? He thinks he's saying the truth. And Tosafos answers that the truth is in this case he is not saying שמא, he's saying clearly, \"I know for sure I paid you.\" We suspect that maybe he made a mistake, because טרוד בפועליו. But according to his own claim, he says befeirush, \"I didn't forget, and I know for sure that I paid you.\" So if he doesn't have a migo, then sof kol sof we say he thinks that he paid him, but we suspect maybe he didn't pay and he just forgot. But we don't suspect that he's lying, but on the other hand, we can't accept his word, because after all, maybe he is making a mistake. But if he has a migo, and a migo usually helps a person to be believed, so because we suspect that maybe he's making a mistake, we should take away his ne'emanut? We should suspect him in lying because he claims he didn't forget. We say he did forget, so we're like saying he's lying when he says he didn't forget. So what kind of a right do we have to suspect that he's lying when he has a migo, when usually a migo is a form of ne'emanut, a reason to believe the person? So therefore the Gemara says, if he has a migo, even though we suspect maybe he forgot, but since he says he didn't forget, we believe him. If he doesn't have a migo, then after all, we do have a sevara that maybe he forgot, and he doesn't have an extra ne'emanut, an extra reason to be believed because he has no migo, so then we takeh don't believe him, and we make the שכיר swear and collect his money.